Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that I express the feeling of the House in regretting the reasons for Mr. Speaker's absence and in relaying the House's great good wishes for his early recovery and return.

Anne Milton: If he will list aims of the UK deployment to southern Afghanistan.

John Reid: The international community's involvement in Afghanistan is aimed at ensuring that Afghanistan will never again become a breeding ground for international terrorism, by helping the Afghan people rebuild their democracy, their security and their economy. United Kingdom deployment to southern Afghanistan is part of the UN-mandated, NATO-led international security assistance force, which is expanding across the country in support of this commitment.

John Reid: I am sorry my hon. Friend does not understand it, but there is clarity about exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and in the south. We are in Afghanistan under a UN mandate with the support of the world community, not through a multinational force but through a NATO-led and NATO-configured force—ISAF—to help the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan extend their democratic authority and build their own security forces, and to assist them in their economic development. That is precisely why we are going to the south. It was envisaged for some time that, after we went in, we would do that in stages. This is stage 3, and it is completely in accord with the planning that we have outlined. I do not hide from my hon. Friend the fact that it is more dangerous and difficult than the first two stages, but I recall, as will everyone in the House, why we are there. We are there to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a training ground, a planning arena and a launch platform for terrorist acts such as those we saw in New York—the worst terrorist act in history.

Paul Flynn: Rather than destroying almost the only livelihood of farmers in the Helmand province of Afghanistan and possibly driving them into the arms of the Taliban, would it not be better to try to license their production to be used not for heroin production but for producing diamorphine? As we know, there is a world shortage of diamorphine, and anyone dying in a third world country has only a 6 per cent. chance of getting diamorphine, because 70 per cent. of the world supply is taken by seven rich countries. Would it not be a more stable solution to divert production to diamorphine production?

John Reid: Yes, and if I remember correctly, the then Government in this country and the United States spent a lot of money funding the Mujaheddin in order to fight the Russians. We are now seeing the fruits of some of those decisions, which the hon. Gentleman supported so many years ago.
	I listen to what the hon. Gentleman says about Afghanistan and I read to try to catch up with his prolific reading on the subject, but as I pointed out to him previously, there is a difference on two grounds between this intervention and all previous ones. First, we are there at the behest and with the authority of the world community in the United Nations. Secondly, we are there at the invitation of the democratically elected Afghanistan Government. Those two things are not insignificant in comparison with what happened in previous interventions.

Tobias Ellwood: We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans not only on the battlefield but in the corridors of diplomacy and on the factory floor. Joint efforts to build a replacement for the Sea Harrier are being challenged by a corner of Capitol Hill. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State do what they can to ensure that the necessary technology is shared? Otherwise, we will have two new aircraft carriers, but no aircraft to put on them.

Peter Atkinson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he reassure the House, however, that when he meets his fellow European Ministers in a few days to fix the agency's budget he will not accept the French Government's suggestion that there should be a common European defence budget?

Brian Iddon: May I hark back to the discussion on question No. 1? I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that if farmers are to be persuaded to give up producing a non-perishable product at a relatively high price and grow perishable goods which they can convey to a sizeable market, Afghanistan must have a good infrastructure. In particular, it must have good roads and bridges. Will the increased number of armed troops help the Afghans to build a better infrastructure?

Patrick Mercer: The Secretary of State has told us about the number of troops who are going to the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan, but the Americans found that reconstruction was difficult to achieve because the troops were so thinly spread. Can the Secretary of State confirm first that non-governmental organisations are poised and ready to act, and secondly that we will have enough troops to protect them so that that crucial work can be done?

Ashok Kumar: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, if we are to maintain a strong defence industry, we need to encourage more young people to study engineering? Will he use his good offices to build strong links between the defence industry and engineering colleges, and will he congratulate Freeborough community college in my constituency, which has just been designated as an engineering college?

Nick Herbert: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but since our sole nuclear deterrent, Trident, will no longer be viable in 15 to 20 years' time, are we not reaching the point where decisions can no longer be avoided about replacing it? Is not the danger of nuclear proliferation in the middle east reason enough to begin a debate now on the need to update our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of our national security?

Adam Ingram: As my right hon. Friend knows—he is very knowledgeable about all this—the defence industrial strategy is the first serious attempt to ensure that our approach smoothes out the peaks and troughs of what is unquestionably a major shipbuilding programme. When we get to 2016, that high, sustained effort will go into decline. We are seeking to ensure not only that we have continuity in shipbuilding capacity and, hopefully, alongside that, in steel-making capacity, but that we retain the high-grade skills that are required to put sophisticated systems in place. All those things will have to be judged on the basis of what is best for defence and how industry can best meet those needs. Industry, the work force and the Ministry of Defence strongly support that new strategy. We will have to see how it develops as the years roll by.

Helen Goodman: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen African peace-building capabilities.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence contributes to the strengthening of African peace-building capabilities by training and advising personnel from the African Union and various African armed forces in peace-support operations. That is achieved bilaterally through permanently deployed and short-term training teams in key countries, and also by direct UK support to international training centres. In addition to our network of defence attaches, some 120 British armed forces personnel are based in sub-Saharan Africa to assist in those tasks.

Keith Vaz: On a point of order, is it still the convention that Members of Parliament write to other hon. Members in advance if they visit their constituencies? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Last Tuesday, three members of the parliamentary Liberal party, which is 5 per cent. of the total, came to Leicester, East, where they dined with the former Member for Leicester, South at a public meeting, where they consumed chicken tikka massala and Cobra beer. Their satellite navigation system might not have been working or they may have misunderstood the term "constituency week". I take it to mean spending more time in one's own constituency: they obviously feel that it means spending more time in other people's constituencies. I do not mind them coming to Leicester, which is a fabulous city, and I would have been happy to meet them there, but I wondered if that convention was still in existence.

Nick Ainger: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 9th January 2006 (Government of Wales Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 6 to 8 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two days.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the Table and in the order so shown.
	4. Each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.
	
		
			 First Day 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1 and Clauses 3 to 22. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 23 to 27, Schedule 2 and Clauses 28 to 44. The moment of interruption. 
			  Second Day 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 45 to 58, Schedule 3, Clauses 59 to 87, Schedule 4, Clauses 88 to 93, Schedule 5, Clauses 94 to 102, Schedule 6, Clauses 103 to 107, Schedule 7, Clauses 108 to 144, Schedule 8, Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 9, Clauses 149 to 159, Schedule 10, Clauses 160 and 161, Schedule 11, Clause 162, Schedule 12 and Clauses 163 to 165; new Clauses and new Schedules; any other proceedings on the Bill. One and a half hours before the moment of interruption. 
		
	
	The programme motion seeks to ensure adequate debate on parts of the Bill that have attracted amendments to be considered on Report. It follows three days in Committee on the Floor of the House, during which the Bill received thorough and detailed scrutiny, particularly of the parts that are genuinely new enhanced primary powers and of proposals for reforming the electoral system.
	The House will be aware that 93 of the 165 clauses are based closely on sections of the Government of Wales Act 1998. A further 48 clauses relate to the separation of the legislature from the Executive, a policy that has all-party support. Only 24 clauses are concerned with the new provisions relating to the Assembly's enhanced—and, subject to a referendum, primary—legislative powers. It was thus right and proper for the House to focus on scrutinising parts of the Bill that are novel and which it has not previously considered, while devoting less time to aspects that have cross-party support, such as the separation of the Executive and the legislature.
	Despite the points that I have just made, the House will recall that at the end of the Committee, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) objected in a point of order that the House had been unable to scrutinise 133 clauses. Consequently, she asked for more time for consideration in Committee. The House will want to note that at no time was such a request made through the usual channels. Indeed, an intervention from the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), on 26 January was the only suggestion of any kind from the official Opposition that more time might be needed. That point was raised through the usual channels immediately afterwards, yet even then the Opposition did not press a request for more time.
	The programme motion for the Committee was agreed with cross-party support. Furthermore, consideration of the Bill was organised to ensure that the House concentrated its scrutiny on provisions that were genuinely new, or controversial. The House will recall that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham expressed particular concern that there was no opportunity for the House to scrutinise the "extremely complex financial provisions" of the Bill, so I was extremely surprised to see that not a single Conservative amendment has been tabled on those provisions on Report. I should be interested to hear the hon. Lady's explanation of that apparent oversight.
	The programme motion seeks to guarantee that the amendments on outstanding issues of contention receive appropriate scrutiny. If accepted, the programme motion will ensure that amendments relating to parts 1 and 2, which deal with the legal separation between the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government, will be considered on the first day of consideration on Report. Although some of the provisions that relate to the Assembly's electoral arrangements have been debated in Committee, some of the remaining provisions in parts 1 and 2 have not yet been scrutinised by the House and have attracted amendments. We have therefore sought to ensure that those amendments that have been selected receive adequate time.
	Day two will allow the consideration of the provisions in parts 3 to 6. The provisions in parts 3 and 4 that relate to Assembly measures and Acts of the Assembly received detailed consideration in Committee. The programme motion will ensure that amendments relating to those parts that have been selected for consideration and those relating to the remaining parts of the Bill will receive an appropriate amount of time for debate.
	In conclusion, the programme motion will ensure that the debates on Report and Third Reading will address all parts of the Bill where amendments have been tabled and selected. I commend the programme motion to the House.

Jim Devine: Is the hon. Lady aware of the situation of the leader of the Scottish National party, who, if he stood in a constituency and lost could then be elected through the list? Not only would a loser become a winner—a loser would become a leader. Is not that a rigged system? He is effectively betting on a three-horse race—he cannot lose.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman and I are of one accord on this. What seems important is whether the Bill suits the Labour party, not whether it suits the people of Wales or contains what is best for the people of Wales. I was at a Scottish Affairs Committee recently at which some eminent people, including Sir John Arbuthnott, were giving evidence. One of the Labour members of the Committee even wanted to know how many degrees Sir John had. I think that that Member was trying to make the point that Sir John was so intelligent that he could not relate to ordinary people. Well, perhaps that was the case, because I believe that Sir John replied that he had 11 or 12 degrees. That certainly put that Labour Member in his place.
	The Government have tried to fall back on the old line that there is widespread and systematic abuse—I think that was how the Secretary of State described the situation—in Wales. If the abuse is so widespread and systematic, why has the Secretary of State failed to respond to letters from Nicholas Bourne, the leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly, written on 4 November and 27 January? Those letters contained a request for information about the Secretary of State's assertions. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), is looking slightly blank. Nicholas Bourne's letter of 27 January to the Secretary of State says:
	"I enclose a copy of a letter I sent to you on 4 November 2005, to which I have, as yet, received no response.
	I am concerned that you have made assertions regarding alleged abuse by List Assembly Members of their position in relation to expenses. This is a claim that, as far as I am aware, has never been substantiated.
	If you are making such a claim it is clearly a very serious one".
	The letters of 4 November and 27 January from the leader of the Conservative group regarding the systematic abuse that has been prayed in aid in relation to changing the system have not even received a response from the Secretary of State. I hope that a response will now be forthcoming.
	Another argument that the Government have used is that the banning of dual candidacy will end the confusion caused by the present system. However, I am not sure how that would follow. The research that I have seen suggests that banning someone from standing in a constituency system or a list system would not address the problem that people fail to understand that there is a first-past-the-post system coupled with a proportional representation system. That is where the sticking point seems to be with the electorate. Clearly, some analysis and research is needed to back up what the Government are trying to do.
	I want to deal with the Secretary of State's arguments in Committee. I was particularly interested in the way in which he responded to the debate on clause 7. He said:
	"We should start with the facts. Interestingly, the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals for preventing a ban on dual candidature. That is fact No. 1."—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 122.]
	Well, it is not quite fact No.1, because I decided that I would examine the voting and the debate on the relevant amendments to the Bill in the Assembly. If the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly voted against the idea, he is skating on thin ice. The amendments were only defeated on the casting vote of the Presiding Officer, who was obliged to vote against them under standing orders. I do not know how he would have voted had he been free to vote as he wished, but we need only examine the voting of members of his party to discover where his heart might have lain. To say that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals is therefore to flirt with the truth.
	On amendment No. 1, in the name of Lisa Francis, Conservative Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, and 0 abstentions. On amendment No. 5, in the name of Jocelyn Davies, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, 0 abstentions—casting vote. On amendments Nos. 7 and 11, the voting numbers were exactly the same. The Secretary of State's opening gambit in his response therefore takes the biscuit. Given the opportunity of a free vote by the Presiding Officer, we might find that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Government's proposals. However, the Labour party supports them, and it is its amendments that we are considering.
	Labour Members also displayed a lot of partisanship when they said that one of their problems was with list Members setting up rival camps. I am not sure how this change in the system will stop that because there will still be list members, who will still be able to set up rival camps. The evidence session given by Professor Sir John Arbuthnott and Dr. Nicola McEwan to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 14 February, which I attended, provided an interesting insight into the psychology of the Labour party. I heard the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), utter the immortal words that are on page 22 of the draft transcript:
	"I represent Glasgow Central. I have 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency."
	That is the Labour party's attitude to Members of the Scottish Parliament and, I presume, to Assembly Members. That is appalling. We have touched on the real reason for the proposals in the Bill to change the electoral system.

Paul Murphy: The point is being made that this policy simply appeared out of the blue and was dreamed up at the last moment, but it was not like that. The people of Wales knew precisely what the Labour party's policy was and what they were voting for, and in any event, it is a sensible one. If people do not like a particular Assembly Member who has been elected as a constituency Member through the first-past-the-post system, they can vote that Member out of the Assembly. However, if, as happened in Clwyd, West and other constituencies, someone chooses to stand dually—in the top-up AM list and in the constituency—and loses, they can still get back into the Assembly. I am sure that if we asked any of our constituents whether that is fair, they would say that it is not.
	Another point that we must ram home constantly is that few top-up Assembly Members concentrate on safe seats. They often concentrate their activities in marginal seats: ones that they think they are most likely to win at the forthcoming election. That may be politically sensible—I am not saying that it is not—but is that the role of an AM who is a top-up Member? No, it is not. The role of an AM who represents a region of Wales is to represent that region equally and properly. That sometimes happens but often, it does not, because of the concentration of political activity in marginal seats. Such concentration distorts and perverts the reason for having top-up AMs in Wales.
	The best solution is to do away with the system altogether and to come up with a different one. That is a debate for another day, but today we are debating an issue that the vast majority of people in Wales understand: doing away with an unfairness. They were told about this policy during the general election, when a clear manifesto commitment was given. I urge the House to follow the wise advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger)—he is not a junior Minister but the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—will give us when he winds up: to vote against these amendments.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) added little that is new to this debate, but given that we have already discussed this issue comprehensively, it is hardly surprising that we should go over some of the same ground. I was slightly surprised by the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be arguing as his core case that because this policy was a manifesto commitment, others need to honour it. As I made clear in my intervention, and as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) did in his, it is very difficult to take that argument seriously, given that the Government themselves do not respect their manifesto promises to this country. Such an approach certainly does not add any credence to whatever claims may be made that these changes will increase the democratic effectiveness of Wales as a nation.
	I shall go through some of the points that have been made, some of which hopefully are new. First, we must recognise that there is an attractiveness in separating the constituency and list candidatures, as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. That looks like a nice way of making it more difficult for opposing candidates from other parties to campaign in marginal seats. Indeed, I would go further: I have some experience of this issue, having observed what goes on in Montgomeryshire. Simply to argue for a change because it makes it easier for the incumbent has nothing to do with the democracy of the system. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it is justified to change the system to make it more difficult for other parties to marshal their resources and provide significant competition in a given constituency. Anyone who did that would be doing what the Government claim they are not doing, and that is gerrymandering the system.

Lembit �pik: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute but I want to respond to the more interesting of the points that he made earlier on, which also ties in with something that the right hon. Member for Torfaen said. The hon. Gentleman said that losers should not be winners. What a dramatic change for the Labour party: losers should not be winners. Where does it say that manifesto commitments secured by only a third of the popular vote mean that a party has the justification, in any democratic sense, to force through such provisions?
	Labour Members know as well as I do that two thirds of the British population voted for parties that were not Labour, yet when they are talking about democracy that fact seems to go out of the window. Today, it is convenient for Members sanctimoniously to masquerade as keepers of the democratic process, but we should never forget the complete contradiction in the Government's justifying their proposed changes on the basis that there is some kind of democratic deficit in Wales, while forcing through these and many other provisions when they very well know that most of the electorate voted against their manifesto.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is getting into what the House of Lords should do to legislation from this place. His argument seems entirely consistent with what other Liberal Democrats and Conservative Front Benchers have said since the last general electionthat they have no intention of standing by the Salisbury convention, because they believe that we did not properly win that election. The hon. Gentleman is introducing a second version of losers shall be winners.
	Earlier, the hon. Gentleman said that he felt that I was urging that we have a system that disbenefited smaller parties, but the present system gives smaller parties an extraordinary advantage. My experience in south Wales is that smaller parties are smaller parties because they do not command the support of the people of Wales, and I do not think that we should give them an additional leg up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the advice that he has just given to himself?

Lembit �pik: To raise the suspense, I will come to that in just a minute.
	To finish off, I ask the Minister to reflect on what he is asking us to do today. Is he really so sure that he will achieve the intended goals and that, if we have such a debate again in the Chamber in four years' time, he will be able to point to evidence and say, Look at all the things we cleared up? I simply do not believe that. I do not believe that he really believes it either. This is a sop to bitter Labour Assembly Members who are concerned about the trouble that the Opposition parties cause in their constituencies. Therefore, I suggest that, if the Government are serious about democracy rather than opportunism, they will think again, and to answer the hon. Lady's question, if she chooses to divide the House on the issue, the Liberal Democrats will unquestionably support her amendment.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Opposition parties are being extraordinarily politically generous to the Labour party by suggesting that the system should not be changed, since if it is changed, it will be to the disbenefit of the Labour party? Does that not prove that we are acting from the highest possible motives?

Cheryl Gillan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the answer is that regional Members should have an office in every constituency? The situation would then be even-handed. Regional Members would then be representing the regions that he says that they should be representing. A Member of the European Union Parliament can open an office wherever he wants within his constituency. Since the Government entered office, that applies from Buckinghamshire down to Brighton and includes the whole of Wales. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding the roles of our elected Members. Should he not be pleased that a regional Member can open an office in his constituency and give more representation to the people, instead of being such a dog in the manger? Or is he like the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), who says that he has 11 MSPs interfering in his constituency?

Elfyn Llwyd: As I said, the right hon. Gentleman and myself are as one on the fact there has been some confusion about the system, especially early on. I admit that, but I also point out that, in the past few years, in the run-up to the previous election and since, I have heard nothing along those lines, although there was confusion to begin with.
	On the so-called evidence that has been produced by the Bevan Foundation, we have been through all these matters before on 30 January. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has given an excellent synopsis of the rather threadbare Bevan Foundation report. We are told that the report is thoroughly independent and that the Bevan Foundation is politically unaligned. If anybody can listen to that suggestion without laughing, there must be something wrong because it is clearly nothing short of a front for the Labour party.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is a question of research and evidence. Lord Richard expressed his personal opinion before the Welsh Affairs Committee, but his report does not refer to the subject. Returning to my opening point, I find it strange that nobody raised the question in the 18 months of consideration, but that is by the by.
	I will not labour the point with further quotations: suffice to say that Dr. Scully and Dr. Richard Wyn Jones from Aberystwyth have used strident language in stating that the measure looks like a purely party political move by the Labour party, and the evidence from Barry Winestrobe, reader in law at Napier university, is very clear, too. We did not receive any evidence in Committee, apart from the fabled Bevan Foundation report, and frankly we have not received any evidence today. In Committee, I asked the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) to bring the paperwork showing his constituents' concerns. I would not and do not doubt his word, but it would interesting to see some extrinsic evidence supporting the point made by Labour Members.

Elfyn Llwyd: That is a kind offer, and I must look at my diaryI may well be going on a fact-finding tour on Friday evening.
	The change has not been proven to be necessary. It will benefit the Labour party, and it will disadvantage all other parties. Dual candidature is acceptable in other countriesin some countries, people are expected to stand both in a constituency and on a listbut it has suddenly become wrong in Wales. It has probably become wrong in Wales because Labour Members have done the sums and realised that they will not get anywhere in the National Assembly without cooking the books. However, I tell them that even after cooking the books, they will not got anywhere in 2007.

Cheryl Gillan: That is because I feel strongly on the subject. I just wanted to quote some of the good people of Caerphilly, who say:
	It is good that people have more than more than one chance.;
	They should be free to stand in both ballotsthat seems fair enough.;
	That means that the power is spread out which can make more of a difference in the end.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: No. 21, in page 14, line 16, at end insert
	'(1A) The wording of the Assembly Oath shall be
	I do solemnly swear to discharge the responsibilities required of me to the best of my abilities and faithfully serve the people of Wales whom I here represent.'.
	New clause 5Oath to be taken or affirmation to be made in public
	'An oath required by section 23 or 55 is to be taken (or the corresponding affirmation made) in public.'.

David Mundell: I do not support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) because, as I said in Committee, I have experience of the Scottish Parliament and am aware that a great deal of legislation is based on bringing Assembly procedures in line with those used in the Scottish Parliament. I do not know how many Members have followed in detail the work of the Scottish Parliament in the past six years, but when swearing the prescribed Oath, members of fringe parties often seek to perform stunts by delivering another oath or affirmation. On one occasion, a Member sought to write a message for the wider public on their hand during the Oath-taking ceremony. I do not accept that such behaviour is worthy of Members of either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. There is no suggestion in the amendments that such activities are planned, but the wording of amendment No. 21 is very close to the wording that members of the Scottish National party have attempted to use in the Scottish Parliament. If Members do not wish to swear the oath to Her Majesty, I have no understanding as to why they cannot be satisfied with the ordinary affirmation procedure, rather than seeking to bring forward some new procedure, which does not add anything to either the process or the solemnity of the duties that they are undertaking.
	I wish for a change to be made in regard to the swearing of the oath or affirmation in public. I can see no reason why the ceremony should not be held in public. Indeed, if Members were to engage in public in the sort of antics that I have described, I think that the wider general public would see the respect, or lack of it, with which they treated the institution. Therefore, I, together with other colleagues, have tabled new clause 5, which would require the oath to be taken in public. I hope that the Minister will not have difficulty accepting such a proposal.

Lembit �pik: Obviously, it would be a free vote if this matter were divided on in the House, but I understand that the amendment was tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) in order to have a debate. That is a legitimate aim.
	Speaking in a personal capacity, I have to say that I quite like the Queen and I hope she likes me. In case she reads this, I would want to her to know that I am very keen on people having the opportunity to swear an oath of allegiance to her and indeed to the future king of England, currently the Prince of Wales. In that sense, perhaps we have a vested interest in keeping sweet with the monarch.
	On the point made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), it is interesting and valid to suggest that the oath be taken in public. Many of us have benefited from the interest that taking the oath generates at the beginning of a parliamentary term. I cannot see why that would not be allowed. I seek the Minister's guidance on whether there is anything to prevent the oath being taken in public. Perhaps an etiquette could be established. Obviously, it is not for us but for the Assembly to decide whether it is a matter of etiquette, but it would be helpful to hear an assurance from the Minister that there is nothing in law to prevent the Assembly from ensuring that the oath be taken in public.

David Davies: I disagree with amendment No. 20 because I see it as another attempt to undermine the principle that all parliamentarians should swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. That is very important. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), it is not about whether we like the Queen or indeed whether she likes us; it is about supporting the British constitution, which has served us extremely well since 1688. It is vital that we recognise that it is the monarch who is the head of state. I do not think that that could be more vital at the moment, because we appear to have a Prime Minister who sometimes thinks that he is the head of state. That is another reason why I am pleased to read about the thoughts of the person who I hope will be the next monarch of the United Kingdom.
	I support the principle of holding the oath ceremony in public. Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to relate an anecdote about how I happened to become the Father of the House in the Welsh Assembly. A couple of days after I was successfully elected to represent Monmouth, I went out to celebrate with the former Member of Parliament for Clwyd, West, who was elected at the same time as me. Waking up in his house in Cardiff, we decided to go to have a look at the Welsh Assembly before we were officially sworn in 48 hours later. We arrived, whereupon an official said, Now you are here boys, why don't you come and swear the oath in my private office? We did so. My colleague subsequently resigned. I then became the Father of the House, being the longest serving Member. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is laughing. I had the satisfaction, half an hour after taking the oath, of seeing the leader of the Liberal Democrats with his posse of Members arriving with a load of TV cameras thinking that they were going to be the first to take the oath.

David Mundell: I wish to state our broad support for amendment No. 30, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and his colleagues. We believe that it makes sense for the membership of the Assembly Commission to reflect the range of parties represented in the Assembly. In speaking to amendments Nos. 14 and 3 and new clause 8, I want also to express sympathy with amendment No. 31, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which aims to achieve a similar outcome.
	Our purpose in proposing to replace clause 29 with new clause 8 is straightforward. Unlike the Government, we want to ensure the greatest possible degree of inclusiveness and sharing of responsibility in the Assembly Committee system. As the Bill makes clear, the Committee system will continue to play a very important role in the Assembly's work by holding the Assembly Government and individual Ministers properly to account. However, under the Bill as drafted, the first place on each Committee will go to members of the largest political grouping in the Assembly, which is currently the Labour party. So as matters stand, in addition to having a Labour Assembly Government, the first place on each Committee will go to a Labour Assembly Member. Likewise, if the Conservative party became the largest party in the Assembly and formed the Government, it would have first place on the Committees. We are not making a partisan pointwe believe that that arrangement gives an inbuilt and unfair advantage to one party.
	The Committees should be representative of the Assembly as a whole. Instead of the complicated system set out in clause 29, we propose a simple formula that would ensure that in appointing members to Committees and Sub-Committees, regard be had to the balance of political parties in the Assembly. It is worth noting that part 2 of the Bill contains a series of clauses relating to the Welsh Assembly Government under the heading
	'Inclusive' approach to exercise of functions.
	We believe that the Committees should operate on the same principle and should be properly inclusive. Indeed, we feel so strongly about this issue that we will press the amendment to a vote, should the Minister not respond to our satisfaction.

Nick Ainger: Obviously, this is a very complex matter, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I go through the detail, especially in addressing some of the points made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd).
	On amendment No. 30, which was moved by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), clause 27 sets up the Assembly commission, thus ensuring that the Assembly has all the property, staff and services that it requires. Amendment No. 30 would insert a requirement that the members of the Assembly commission, other than the presiding officer, should not belong to the same political group. The amendment would impose an unnecessary statutory constraint. The Government of Wales Act 1998 has been criticised for placing too many limits on the Assembly, and the Government have made it clear that we intend to give the Assembly as much freedom as possible to make its own decisions about how it will work.

Nick Ainger: Absolutely. The d'Hondt system does not work for Committees with small numbers. In that case, there are distortions. However, Rhodri Morgan, the First Minister, has recognised that. He has put it on the record that, if the Assembly wanted to set up a Committee of six, he would not force through d'Hondt on any Committee that small. If it was felt that a Committee of six was wanted, for whatever purpose, I hope that the usual channels would be able to agree the numbers in the way in which they will in 99 per cent. of caseshopefully 100 per cent. In most cases, agreement will be reached through the usual channels, recognising the political balance. Again, it is up to the Assembly to determine the size of Committees.
	If the Opposition are seeking reassurance about the Labour party's intentions, as I think that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) was, I can put it on record now. Two weeks ago in the Assembly, the First Minister said:
	I am quite happy to place on record the fact that, in the case of any committee for which we thought it advisable to have six committee members, we would not want to see . . . d'Hondt . . . applied.
	I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
	The form of the requirement imposed by new clause 8 would leave the Assembly with very little flexibility, in contrast to clause 29. It would oblige Standing Orders to ensure that each Committee and Sub-Committee reflected party balance. There would be little room to cater for different circumstances, or to vary from a strict application of party balance. There could also be real practical problems in applying the requirement to ensure that, taken together, the Chairs of the Committees and Sub-Committees reflected party balance in the Assembly. Every time a Committee or Sub-Committee started or finished its work, the allocation of Chairs would have to be revisited. I think that hon. Members would accept that that would not be a sensible way to proceed.
	The problem with amendments Nos. 3 and 14 is that they do not provide any direction about what should happen in the event that the parties cannot reach consensus. Without the fall-back provisionI emphasise again that it is a fall-back provisionthat clause 29 provides, the Assembly could end up with a stalemate, unable to choose between the variety of mechanisms available to define party balance. That is not a hypothetical concern: it is based on experience.
	Amendment No. 31 would reinstate the existing provision in the Government of Wales Act 1998 in place of the provisions in clause 29. That would be entirely inappropriate following the separation of the legislature and Executive. The existing requirements in the 1998 Act were designed to deal with the possibility that the Committees might exercise Executive functions of the Assembly. Following separation, such functions will lie with the Welsh Assembly Government and not the Assembly and its Committees. In so far as the provision would have any meaning at all, most Committees, other than, for example, those carrying out detailed consideration of Assembly Measures or Acts after a referendum, would arguably exist solely to provide advice, in which case there would be no requirement in place at all as to party balance on the vast majority of Assembly Committees.
	The provisions of clause 29 are a sensible, impartial and flexible way of ensuring that seats on Committees are allocated to political parties in accordance with their overall representation in the Assembly. As I stated earlier, the d'Hondt formula has not been plucked out of thin air. We have ensured that the interests of small political parties and independents are properly protected and provided the ability for the Assembly to override the formula altogether, which, as I said, I expect to be the norm rather than the exception. In conclusion, for the reasons that I have given, I urge the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd: Is it not the simple fact that, given that the Labour Administration in Cardiff who, for their own reasons, want to engineer a deadlock on this issue, which they can, the d'Hondt system has to come in? The mere suggestion then that a two thirds majoritya supramajoritycould suddenly overturn d'Hondt is fantasy and nonsense.

Lembit �pik: It is almost as weak as being offered an assurance from someone who does not have the jurisdiction to make such commitments.
	As the hon. Gentleman says, as I have suggested myself and as those on the Opposition Front Bench have pointed out, these arguments have not been advanced plausibly. The Minister falls back on hearsay assurances from individuals who are not qualified to give those assurances. The only hope that these debates would carry water or weight is the assumption that the verbiage of the debates would be the more powerful than the interpretation by any future Administration of the law itself. That is no way to frame legislation. That, by the Government's own admission, will have to carry us through well into the 21st century, when it comes to Welsh devolution.
	For that reason, I feel that I have to put amendment No. 32 to the vote. It will be a matter of shame if the Government still feel obliged to oppose such a common-sense proposal, and if the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) chooses to press amendment No. 3 to a separate vote, my colleagues and I will have no alternative but to support it.

Hywel Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We want to clarify the matter to avoid argument and dissent. Language is an important issue in Wales and tempers get frayed, so it would be useful if that point were clarified.
	Amendment No. 18 is straightforward. We merely seek a reassurance that anything that the Assembly Minister does to support the language will include the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993. The Secretary of State addressed that point in Committee, but if the Minister were to provide such a reassurance, it would be helpful.
	Amendment No. 19 refers to clause 110there has been a mistake, because it refers to line 28 rather than line 35. Its purpose is to ensure that Bills passed by the Assembly are in both Welsh and English and that there are no circumstances in which a Bill might be passed in Welsh only or in English only. We think it important that the principle of equality applies to the use of both the languages of WalesEnglish and Welshin the Assembly. Again, an assurance would clear up the matter.
	New clause 10 is possibly the most contentious provision in the group. It would allow the Assembly to pass a Welsh language measure now as primary legislation without holding a referendum. I accept that that might be contentious, but I hope that the new clause signals to the Minister the importance that we place on that particular issue, because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Wales about the operation of the Welsh Language Act 1993.
	In Committee, I referred to the great strides taken in 1993 and 1967in 1967, the then Labour Government passed the Welsh Language Act 1967but the 1993 Act is 13 years old and the situation has moved on. One would expect any Government to review social legislation in the light of ever-changing circumstances and perhaps to introduce new proposals. The Assembly has given the 1993 Act some attention and introduced its plans, but, as I have said, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Wales, because people see that the 1993 Act does not go far enough given the change in the nature of language use in Wales.
	Use of the Welsh language is growing, especially among young people. About 30 per cent. of young people speak Welsh, compared with about 20 per cent. of those aged over 65. Welsh is a younger, growing language. Not only that, but the proportion of Welsh speakers who live outside the traditional heartland areas is growing every year. Nowadays, 40 per cent. of Welsh speakers live in the south and east, in areas where the Welsh language is not socially prominent and one cannot assume that one can speak Welsh merely because one is a Welsh speaker. In my own town of Caernarfon, I would not dream of using English in a greengrocer, whereas I would consider doing so in Monmouth or Cardiff.
	We need to make much more explicit the absolute right to use Welsh. People should have limited rights for using Welsh in some public services. As regards speech therapy, for example, why should Sin have a different standard of service from John? John will find it extremely difficult to get speech therapy in English but Sin will find it impossible, in most places, to get it in the medium of Welsh. There should be parity of treatment and a positive right in respect of that aspect of a public service. I do not think that any of my colleagues, or anyone in Wales, would say that there should be an absolute right for everything to be bilingualthat would not be a practical proposition at presentbut that is an example of the dissatisfaction in Wales about the working of the 1993 Act, and why a reasonable Government would review whether the rights could be extended.
	Let me explain why some aspects of the 1993 Act support my case for new clause 10. Like many hon. Members, I have recently done a great deal of work on tax credits. That is difficult enough as it is, but, as the Minister will know, Revenue and Customs has found it impossible to generate letters in Welsh with its current computer system, so letters in English are produced, sometimes sensible and sometimes not so sensible. If there were to be a move in language legislation, one would hope that the production of such material in Welsh in Wales would become the norm rather than the exception, so that hon. Members would not waste their time banging the counter at Revenue and Customs and pushing for their constituents to have such material in Welsh.
	Last year, I had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) about the forms for licensing. When people were applying for licences before the passage of the Licensing Act 2003, the forms were available only in English. The Minister was very reasonable and said that he would move as quickly as possible to provide them in Welsh. In a written reply to me about two weeks ago, he told me that a working party had met and was discussing the forms, and that that might lead to a statutory instrument some time in the spring, followed by the forms in the summer. That will be one full year after the forms were available in English. I am not trying to ascribe any blame, but that is what happens when the provision of bilingual services in Wales is not the norm, so that almost by default people are denied the right to use the Welsh language.
	I will not say much about the variable standards of service from the privatised utilities or the difficulty of getting answers in Welsh from Swansea about the pension system. However, I mention in passing the difficult issue of third parties acting for local or central Government. Private organisations working for local government are supposed to be subject to the provisions in the local authority's language scheme, but that does not often happen. To give a humorous example, during a case in the local Crown court that was conducted in the medium of Welsh, when the order came, Take him down, everybody in the court moved apart from the two private guards, who had come from Liverpool and had no idea what was going on. That third-party service was not subject to the Welsh language.
	As I said, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction. At the very least, I would like the Minister to give some indication that the Government take that seriously and will think about how we can effect, through discussion and agreement, a positive change that would confer to Sin rights to some limited public services through the medium of Welsh and ensure that third parties are subject to Welsh language schemes. Central Government Departments should be encouraged to see bilingual provision in Wales as normal, so that, for example, the Welsh language could have an explicit statement that it is an official language. In 1993, when Lord Roberts of Conwy was Minister of State at the Welsh Office, he said that the Welsh language is official and has always been so. However, it would be useful to have an explicit statement that Welsh is a legitimate occupational qualification.
	Unfortunately, the Governments here and in Cardiff have already said that not a moment of Government time will be available for such legislation. We have in Cardiff a National Assembly for Wales that Labour Members say does not have much to do. In Committee, it was said that there is no problem in staffing committees in Wales because Members are sitting on their hands most of the time. The National Assembly has the interest, expertise and personnel to consider such legislation, so why should not we enable it to do so?
	I am a realist, and I do not expect the Minister to be immediately persuaded by my words, but some indication that the Government are prepared to take these issues forward would be most acceptable.

David Davies: I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that the matter is as relevant in Suffolk as anywhere else. After all, we are considering a language that was called Brythonic and was once the language of Britain before various waves of Angles, Saxons, Danes and Norsemen came to England and pushed it further west. Cumbria and Cymru are descended from the same word. Hon. Members will guess from that that I have an enthusiasm for the language, which I am told that I have learned to speak with some proficiency.
	I am sorry to say that I must stop short of supporting the amendments because I have some concerns about them. I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government who rightly did so much to protect and preserve the language. It has started to grow even in places such as Monmouthshire. People used to joke that I had doubled the Welsh-speaking population of that county when I learned Welsh, but I assure hon. Members that that is not the case.
	Overall, there is a positive attitude to the language, but concerns have been expressed not only by those who want more Welsh but those who feel that there is too much at the moment. Some people complain about the cost of road signs and of translating every document. I have some sympathy with some points about road signs; the policies could be tailored slightly more to the areas in which they apply, but I would not generally argue with the comments about the positive attitude to the Welsh language. However, if we go too much further and start giving the Assembly powers to legislate without the same amount of scrutiny that applies to all other legislation, is not there a danger that we will begin to turn people against the Welsh language, especially in the anglicised parts of Wales?
	The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) pointed out that statistics show that 20 per cent. of the population speak Welsh. I am not sure about that. I believe that 20 per cent. have a knowledge of Welsh but whether one in five could hold a conversation in Welsh is another matter. He underlined the problem when he used the example of speech therapy. There is a huge general shortage of speech therapists in Wales. One cannot legislate for more speech therapists and certainly not for more who conduct their treatment only through the medium of Welsh.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. One can legislate for more Welsh language speech therapists. For example, one can offer incentives to students to study speech therapy. On almost a monthly basis, I am confronted with the problems of youngsters who need Welsh-speaking speech therapists.
	To follow the comments of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), the Welsh Language Act was passed in 1993, but, since then, only nine Departments have adopted Welsh language policies. Last year, wearing my lawyer's hat, I had to advise somebody who had been refused forms to apply for legal aid through the medium of Welsh. Much remains to be done without offending non-Welsh-speaking people. Obviously, their good will needs to be kept, but much work needs to be done.

John Gummer: I have great sympathy with that argument, but will the Minister accept that the fact that it took a year for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to produce a Welsh form, when it ought to have been automaticit really should never have got to that stageundermines the confidence of the House in the ability of Ministers here and in the Welsh Assembly to get the simple things done? It would be helpful if he could promise that these things will not happen in future, and that such documents will be produced automatically.

Nick Ainger: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the production of the licensing forms. I believe that the Department responsible has apologised for not getting that right when it would not have been too difficult to get it right. The powers to address such issues are in part 3 of the Bill. We want a streamlined system because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it can often take too long to sort these problems out. The Order in Council procedure will enable the Assembly to take powers in regard to any Welsh language responsibilities that it wants to change or enhance. Use of the part 3 procedures will get rid of the logjam that we now face whenever we want to make significant changes to the Welsh Language Act 1993.

Nick Ainger: I am glad that the name of Hugh Rawlings has featured in our debates, because he has been an important member of the Bill team. That team has worked hard over many months to get to where we are today. I want to put on record my gratitude to Mr. Rawlings and all the other members of the Bill team for their excellent work in supporting me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
	The reason why we changed from business to proceedings is that business was used to cover the existing Assembly when it was acting as both a legislature and an Executive. The change reflects the separation. When the Assembly acts as a legislature, the term proceedings will be used, as in Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. Business will now equal proceedings plus the Executive functions. I hope that that explains the change, which is basically due to the separation of the Executive from the legislature. We will now use the same sort of terms as we use here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I sense that I have been a little generous in listening to those points of order, because it was starting to become a debate. The Chair can only point to the fact that the House passed a programme motion earlier, and we are governed by that motion, which could only have been affected by negotiations with the usual channels beforehand. The motion that we had was approved, however, and that is what controls proceedings.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. It is a matter of entitlement. The spouse of a civil servant, a police officer or an officer in the armed forces effectively achieves entitlement to a pension when they are widowed. The removal of that entitlement at any stage is a fundamental injustice that goes against the grain of the British sense of fairness.
	The regulations say that the pension will be taken away if the individual remarries or cohabits. It is quite simple to prove that someone has remarried. Indeed, because everyone knows that it is possible to discover whether someone has remarried, people will write a letter to officials saying, Hands up, I know that I will lose my pension, but I wish to inform you that I have remarried. Although they do not like it and disagree with it profoundly, they accept that the pension that they receive as a widow or a widower will come to an end. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that that happens in all cases of cohabitation? How do the Government know whether someone is cohabiting? Does the Duchy of Lancaster employ an army of individuals who go round the country late at night or in the early hours of the morning to discover whether the widow or widower of a civil servant, a police officer or an Army officer is cohabiting? Do they go out once or twice in the middle of the night to discover whether they are cohabiting? Unless someone puts up their hand and says that they are cohabiting, there is not the faintest possibility that the Minister or his civil servants will know whether someone is cohabiting and should not claim a pension.
	Individuals may do something to alert the authorities dealing with pension payments to the fact that they are cohabiting. For example, a widow and a widower who both receive civil service pensions may start to cohabit and provide the officials administering the pension scheme with the same address. Under those circumstances, the officials might put two and two together and work out that the couple are cohabiting. Alternatively, anonymous phone calls might be made, and officials could respond to them. The reality of the situation, however, is that if a widow or a widower remarries they will lose their pension, but if a widow or a widower cohabits they probably will not do soso the Government are effectively discriminating against people who remarry.
	I do not believe that the state should give people financial incentives to marry. The Government have been right in saying that it is not their responsibility to interfere in people's relationships and say that people should or should no, marry. If people want to live together outside marriage, that is fine. Equally, the state should not give people incentives to co-habit rather than to marry. However, that effectively is what it is doing. One can prove marriage very easilyto prove that someone is co-habiting is much more difficult.
	I do not know what the cost of the proposal to bring back the pension for all those who have lost it in this way would be. I have seen a number of figures. I have heard that a one-off payment of 3 billion would have to be made. I find that a little difficult to get my head around. It must extend beyond civil servants to all public servants in this situation. It must assume that people in these circumstances will be paid the pension that they lost over the years after they remarried or cohabited.
	I accept that that would be a substantial sum of money and perhaps another thing that the Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance would not press for, but I see many different figures for providing a pension from now on to the people who have lost it, or for in future not taking away the pension of people who remarry or cohabit. The Civil Service Pensioners' Alliance has given me the figure of 300 million over 30 years. According to its estimate, that would add 0.4 per cent. to the current pension cost. If a further demand for a pension for post-retirement marriage widows and widowers were acceptedI understand that widows are not entitled to benefits if they retired before 1978 and widowers if they retired before 1988that would add another 75 million over 20 years, or about 0.14 per cent. to the cost. Therefore, about 0.5 per cent. in total could be added for both proposals. It does not seem an awful lot of money.
	When I asked questions of the then Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), in October 2004, I was told that in the previous two years only 325 widows or widowers' pensions were suspended due to remarriage or cohabitation, and that to reinstate all the pensions that were suspended over the previous 10 years would cost about 50 million. It does not seem that we are talking about enormous sums of money.
	Is there not something fundamentally wrong with a system that says to someone, If you are going to go into a new relationship, we are going to financially penalise you for that. We are going to make you choose whether to go into that relationship without any income of your own and to rely on your new partner absolutely, or whether to accept that you cannot go into a new relationship because the financial penalty imposed on you is so great that it is not worth while? Forcing people into that dilemmathe choice between the pension that they were entitled to because of their previous spouse's employment and having a new relationshipis fundamentally wrong. The state is interfering in matters, albeit not by design but by effect, in which it should not be involved. It should not be putting people in the position of having to make that appallingly difficult choice.
	My final point must have crossed the Minister's mind. He must have got copious briefing from his civil servants about it because it is about equal opportunities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) said, the Government have to address that issue seriously. We have a very good record on equal opportunities across the board on a series of matters.

Clive Betts: I agree entirely and my hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, today's report deals with the inequality between women's pay and men's pay, and the Government have rightly express concern about that issue and spoken of the need to address it. Of course, pay is not something that they can directly influence in every circumstance, but they can directly influence pensions because it is within their remit to do so.
	The Government recently dealt with the equal opportunities problems to which the 85-year rule for the local government pension scheme has given rise. In general, women do not serve in local government for quite as long as men because their service is often broken, so they cannot benefit from the 85-year rule to the same extent. The Government have therefore said that because the rule disadvantages women, it is fundamentally unfair and must be removed. However, here we are talking about a rule for civil service widows and widowers that by its very nature discriminates against women, because the fact is that the vast majority of those who lose their pension in this way are women. The Minister doubtless has the precise figures, but we know that to be the case. This rule significantly disadvantages women because more widows lose this pension entitlement than do widowers.
	I suspect that if the Government applied to the rule for widows' and widowers' civil service pensionsand elsewhere in the public sectorthe same test that they applied to the 85-year rule for the local government pension scheme, they would objectively conclude that the former rule is equally discriminatory. I urge the Government to re-examine it because it is fundamentally unfair. It is unfair because it removes a right that a person has built up over time by being married to someone who was in a job that, in a sense, the couple shared during their lives together. That entitlement should not be removed. It is unfair because it requires people to choose between keeping their financial entitlement and entering into a new relationship. It is unfair because it discriminates between those who remarry and those who cohabit. Ultimately, it is unfair because it discriminates against women in a way that could be subject to challenge in the courts under equal opportunities legislation. It would be much better if the Government accepted responsibility and removed this rule, rather than leaving it to the courts to do so.

Jim Murphy: I will be happy to provide the information that we have on those points. My hon. Friend's interpretation of what I said earlier is right. Previouslyabout two decades agothe Treasury actively sought confirmation from recipients that their marital or cohabitation status had not changed, but it was faced with the challenge of responding to about 100,000 requests for information. The decision was taken, under the previous Government, not to continue with that process. My hon. Friend is right to conclude that the current process relies on recipients notifying the authorities of their changed status. He can of course try to reverse the position if he wants to do so. If there is additional information about the tracking procedure that I feel it necessary to provide, I will write to him.
	The costs of retrospectively improving benefits above those originally promised to members are substantial. I cannot verify the figures cited by my hon. Friend, but the scheme actuary estimates that if the civil service scheme were to pay widows and widowers pensions for life, rather than stopping them on remarriage or cohabitation, we would face a one-off cost of about 300 million, plus an ongoing cost in respect of current members of about 0.1 per cent. of pay, which would be 15 million for the civil service scheme, but 150 million annually across the public services.
	If the Government were to agree to a taxpayer-funded improvement in civil service widow and widower pension benefits, it would inevitably lead to pressure to provide similar improvements for other public service employees. My hon. Friend was generous enough to acknowledge that, if such a principle were included in the civil service scheme, there would be pressure to apply it across the public sector. For the whole public service, the Government Actuary's Department estimates the one-off cost at about 3 billion. Of course, in both cases there would also be a year-on-year cost to cover the build-up of further liabilities.